THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NOS. 928/2015
The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office, Maganur Commercial Complex,
B.D.Road, Chiradurga.
Now Represented by its
The Reliance General Insurance company Limited,
Regional Office, 5th Floor, Centenary Builidng,
M.G.Road, Reptd. by its Manager.
(By Shri/Smt. B.C.Shivanne Gowda, Adv.,)
-Versus-
M.M.Renukumar S/o M.T.Manjaiah,
Major, R/o Municipal Colony,
Bhuvaneshwari Circle,
Chitradurga.
………Respondent/s
(By Sri/Smt. K.E.Jagadeesha., Adv.,)
: ORDER:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.79/2014 preferred this appeal against the order dated:26.08.2015 passed by Chitradurga District Commission, wherein the District Commission directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of accident ill realization along with Rs.10,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards cost.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
The complainant claimed for own damage claim by virtue of the policy issued by Opposite Party towards car bearing No.KA-16-B-4097 and after the claim, the Opposite Party has appointed IRDA approved surveyor to assess the loss and to investigate the matter. Accordingly, the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,41,000/- and submitted his report. After submission of the said report, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest as the said vehicle was sold to one Mr.Satish prior to the accident and the same was intimated by the complainant through letter dated:19.03.2014. Hence, submits complainant has no insurable interest. In spite of that, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay the above amount. Hence, prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission.
4. Heard arguments.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order, we noticed that the vehicle met with an accident during the policy was in force and as on the date of accident, the R.C. and policy were stood in the name of complainant. In spite of that they have repudiated the claim basing on the report submitted by the IRDA approved surveyor, where he states that the complainant has written a letter dated:19.03.2014 stating that he had already sold the vehicle to one Satish. Hence, submits that the complainant has no insurable interest to claim the own damage.
6. The learned Advocate for appellant vehemently argued that the letter itself indicates that the complainant has sold the vehicle and even non transfer of R.C. and insurance in the name of Satish, the complainant has admitted through his letter dated:19.03.2014 that he has transferred/sold the vehicle to one Satish and submits that the letter is sufficient to hold a repudiation of the claim by Opposite Party.
7. We observe that the District Commission after trial has appreciated that as on the date of accident, the vehicle registration/insurance stands in the name of complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that mere a letter is not sufficient to hold that the vehicle was transferred to one Satish. The Opposite Party has to establish that the complainant has provided prescribed form by RTO for transfer of the vehicle to one Satish. In the absence of such required documents, we cannot say that one Satish is the owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident. It is admittedly the policy and R.C. stands in the name of complainant only who claimed for own damage claim due to accident.
8. The learned advocate vehemently argued and cited one decision delivered by Hon’ble National Commission in R.P.No.3341/2017, where the Hon’ble Justice V.K.Jain had given a verdict stating that the complainant had no insurable interest as he has admitted that the vehicle was sold to someone and in that regard the RTO also issued NOC. Hence, confirmed no liability on the side of Opposite Party as the complainant has no insurable interest and prays to set-aside the order passed by the District commission.
9. On going through the citation produced by the appellant, we observed that the facts in the case on hand are different. When we looked into the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, the complainant had sold the vehicle along with delivery note and required documents to the subsequent purchaser. The RTO had also given NOC to establish the transfer of the vehicle. Whereas in this case, the complainant had merely wrote a letter and except that the Opposite Party had not produced any materials to show that the complainant had handed over the delivery note, Form No.22 to effect the transfer of R.C. into the subsequent owner. Hence, the decision is not applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, the repudiation made by Opposite Party is not in accordance with provisions of the policy/provisions of the IMV Act.
10. Further, the learned Advocate for appellant submitted that the IRDA approved surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,41,000/-, whereas the District Commission without any reason has awarded Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% which is arbitrary in nature. In this ground also prays to set-aside the order.
11. On perusal of the order, we noticed, the District Commission has not considered the IRDA approved survey report who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,41,000/-. Hence, that amount is only payable. Accordingly, the order requires modification and the Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs.2,41,000/- towards own damage claim along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for rejecting the genuine claim of the complainant. We found there is no reason to award interest in this regard. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed in part.
The impugned order dated:26.08.2015 passed by Chitradurga District commission, in C.C.No.79/2014 is hereby modified as under:-
The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.2,41,000/- along with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the respondent/complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
